First they came for the Queensland Literary Awards. Then they axed the Climate Commission. And in the United States, small government conservatives have caused a shutdown of the US Federal Government by refusing to pass a budget or continuing resolution.

In each of these instances, private donations and crowd-funding have been used or suggested to fill the gaps left by these cuts to government programs.

In Queensland, it was a Pozible campaign which kept the Literary Awards alive after the funding for them was cut in April 2012. Meanwhile, the Climate Commission has just hit its $1 million fundraising target, allowing it to continue as the Climate Council, just weeks after the incoming Abbott Government cut its funding.

The US government shutdown is a more extreme, special case. Obviously the vast majority of US government activity could never be saved by donations, but there are suggestions that some services could be reopened with private backing, such as tourism operators chipping in to keep the Everglades national park open in Florida.

More generally, some in the Republican caucus celebrate the shutdown as a lesson in what the taxpayers can live without. So while none of the Tea Party caucus members are passing around a tin to kickstart Obamacare, they want everyone to get comfortable with privatising the cost of what was or could be a public service - in this instance, by shutting the government down entirely.

I'm sure many Australians were pleased to see the incoming Abbott Government's efforts to axe the Climate Commission thwarted by the generosity of private citizens. We can continue to enjoy quality, independent climate change data - which should help the government make better decisions about this dire global problem.

Problem is, anyone who didn't contribute to keep the Climate Commission open (myself included) is now a free-rider: we get the public benefit of living in a society with independent climate change information without any of the personal cost, because it no longer comes out of our taxes.

I worry about the message that people will take away from the fact some programs are paid for by a section of the population rather than the people as a whole. First is the problem that it could contribute to the perception that climate science is a politicised, sectional interest. It is far better to have climate science funded by the government but decided by a body at arm's-length from it, like the Reserve Bank board, than it is to have a body funded only by people who already believe in climate change. The Climate Council may now be portrayed as "independent" only in the sense that it is independent of government, not its backers. It starts (unfairly) to look equivalent in authority to a think-tank that denies climate change because it is backed by Big Oil.

But more generally, the message it sends is that government services can be cut and someone else will pick up the bill. Crowd-funding may show the internet's power at reaching an audience, but it is also a system that asks the few to pay for the benefit of the many. Often, there won't be enough money to keep all worthy programs going. Vulnerable minorities will be the first to cop the brunt of the lack of compassion, like cuts to the NSW Welfare Rights Centre.

Which brings us back to the US. Libertarian ideologues don't want to strip back government functions temporarily to prove a point. For them, minimal government is the point. Minimal government means that aside from courts and police, the government provides nothing - not even basic social services like health and education. If you can't pay for your own healthcare, the last resort is not a social safety net but a private one: charity.

If people genuinely didn't want taxpayers money to fund arts awards, climate data or healthcare, that would be one thing. But cuts are so often not announced or not given the public debate they deserve. The US shutdown is made possible only by gerrymandered electoral districts guaranteeing most Republicans are safe from the backlash, and the refusal of the Republican Speaker of the House to bring on a vote. Hardly democracy in action.

Ultimately the best resolution is a political one. People who believe that government programs benefit everybody would be better off persuading others of their value, not just footing the bill themselves. Donations by a few are no substitute for consensus from the many.

Ideally, a program's success speaks for itself and justifies sharing the cost through the government. If the Climate Council acquits itself well while privately funded, hopefully the voting public can be convinced it is still something government should fund even though private donors saved it this time. And if Obamacare can make healthcare affordable for the first time for millions more Americans after it is no longer hobbled by the shutdown, it will be judged a success.

If people see the value of these programs, they might learn that government doesn't just have to get bigger, it can also get better.

Paul Karp is a freelance journalist with interests in Australian politics and social policy. View his full profile here.

CP:

But the Climate Commission was always only ever Gillard spending $5 Billion trying desperately to justify her back flip over the Carbon Tax which we were promised we would not have to pay.

And Flannery ... that herd of Labor bovine ruminating cows have chewed their way through the taxpayers' fields enough already. Most have been butchered at the election slaughterhouse and you will not be able to milk them anymore.

Hard cheese, Flannery. Your opinions are no longer of interest to anyone but yourself. I doubt if anyone will be particularly interested in anything you have to say, Flannery. You have no more political patrons, no political base, no constituency. You represent nothing but your own patently discredited theories. Very soon you won't represent even that. You will represent nothing. You will be nothing.

The Labor Party and Greens were quite willing to pay you out of the public purse but neither of them is willing to pay you even half of your previous rate now that the money has to come out of their own pockets. And whilst a small number of individuals might still spare you a few pennies, it won't be enough to fund your "independent research" for long. "Pledging" donations isn't the same as actually receiving the money in your hands! I doubt if you'll last more than 18mths!

Charon:

08 Oct 2013 6:29:21pm

Oh, look out, a greenhouse denialist. I would be interested to see what evidence you cherry-pick that patently discredits Flannery's theories. Oh, I agree, there have been plenty of greenhouse alarmists who have deliberatelt and egregiously exagerrated the negative outcomes of anthropogenic global warming - but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And BTW I don't think the Climate Commission ever did any actual research, they simply publicised and discussed other people's research.

Prof Tom Foolery:

08 Oct 2013 6:44:32pm

CP, you seem to have forgotten that Professor Flannery also works with Siemens, promoting their technology. including wind turbines. This is a clear conflict of interest as he seems willing to ignore the adverse health and wellbeing impacts on neighbours (internationally) when turbines are placed too close to homes. Impacts that are driving people from their farms.

Of course Flannery and his comrades will live nowhere near an Industrial Wind Generator. Their willing blindness will be to their peril as the independant science on acoustic pollution of these industrial machines is enabled to occur, as promised by the new Government.

It remains to be seem how many of the politicians of all persuasions have been corrupted by Wind industry money.

Curious party:

09 Oct 2013 9:47:23am

There are no(/very few) adverse health and wellbeing impacts. It is all (/mostly) hysteria (literally). There are always spikes in medical complaints AFTER people hear about the supposed detrimental impact of wind generators.

And honestly: how much money do you really think there is in the wind industry?

Prof Tom Foolery:

09 Oct 2013 11:50:08am

The senate recommended urgent research into this issue over 2 years ago Curious. They based that recommendation (chaired by Greens senator siewert) on evidence contrary to your assumptions. There is a problem. 40+ rural families have left their homes in SE Australia because of it.Many more are suffering, unable to leave or sell.

How much? $10 billion in the green energy fund for grabs and $300-500 k per year in REC for NON COMPLIANT wind farms. ie moneys on top of any payments for actual power. It is a rort. That is why the mafia has invested in europe.

bnzo:

08 Oct 2013 6:51:40pm

"Hard cheese, Flannery. Your opinions are no longer of interest to anyone but yourself."

uh...

obviously not.

but if you add a few more exclamation points, and add a few more faux-snarky comments, you might entrench that idea, so clearly proven to NOT be the case, a little further in your bottomless bucket of sand where you apparently have chosen to put your head.

John Coochey:

09 Oct 2013 6:54:50am

As they are all on good salaries from other sources pro bono seems to be a wrong term. But if they are not drawing salaries what is the $1 million for? The fact remains that Flannery and his ilk cannot be viewed as any reputable source of advice when there are podcasts available showing him warning of any building with a view of the sea being inundated when he has bought waterfront properties.

RosieA:

09 Oct 2013 8:57:01am

According to Amanda McKenzie, who is the climate council CEO, "the money will go to employing researchers, developing reports and increasing public awareness about climate change science". (Reported on news.com.au on 6th October).

Pro bono is the correct word to use; the councillors are donating their time and in today's busy world, that counts for a lot. Whether they have or haven't other salaries, is irrelevant. We should be thanking them.

You seem to have trouble understanding time-frames. The issue is that the time for taking action to prevent future sea-level change, is now. When the sea rises to levels problematic for our infrastructure, it will be too late. You are implying the change will happen within the few years which may be relevant to Flannery owning any property he may have/buy.....this is not correct. Also, you say Flannery has warned of building in regions likely to be affected by sea-level change......that is quite different from advocating that the Australian population should now abandon living in such areas......until such time as that may be necessary, life goes on in these areas and this includes the buying and selling of homes.

endwire:

08 Oct 2013 3:12:14pm

What? So only net taxpayers should have a say in how government spends tax money and anyone who takes a benefit of some sort from the government should have no say? I'm glad that more reasonable and thoughtful people than you appear to be are making the decisions.

Anon E Mouse:

08 Oct 2013 3:33:57pm

Subset, I tire of hearing about the supposed elite few who are 'taxpayers'.

Get with the truth, not myth. All Australians, and most visitors, are taxpayers. Remember the GST, and before that there were a number of similar taxes. Taxes are paid on transport, fuel, rates - even if you are renting, and all number of things.

It would be extremely difficult to find people who are not actually taxpayers.

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 6:24:36pm

subset the function of the taxation system is wealth and income equalisation. The basic premise is that it is a progressive taxation system (ie. the more income the more tax) and it is spent by government in the interests of all citizens. Only a died in the wool rabit and extreme libertarian neoconservative would argue that (or even suggest) that government revenues should be expended on programs that are of benefit to or in the interests of "net taxpayers".

But since you're clearly not one of them I can only assume you're a complete idiot.

treechanger:

08 Oct 2013 10:19:17am

I agree with the premise of your argument.

I contributed with a small donation to keep the Climate Council going. I did so because I believed that it was crucial that easy-to-understand information WAS available for the general public. With sections of the media backing the denialists and a newly elected government in denial, it was too important an issue to allow to remain buried and out of public sight.

However, I also understood that this new government would use the excuse - we didn't have to spend taxpayers money - and Greg Hunt came out with that excuse immediately. In other words, they can sit on their hands, do nothing substantial and let others do the lifting.

By the way, when the extent of the rorting of entitlements by our new government crowd whilst in opposition is fully exposed, we'll probably find out that the money returned could have kept the climate council going?

James:

bnzo:

it's not the job of the CC to change people's minds inasmuch as it is for them to provide data for you to freely ignore and blindly assert your own entirely unqualified assessment.

Flannery et al are there to provide more dots, already connected for you by someone else, so you can look at them uncomprehendingly and then .. wiping the drool away, suddenly shout "oh hey look, the dots make a horsey!... hey, you lazy scientists, do something about my sticky sweaty shirty!.. now gimmie gimmie icecream.. and rack up the aircon please, I like it COLD in here.. "

James:

08 Oct 2013 6:47:28pm

There's a scene in the movie "A Bugs Life", where the tiny ants realise that throught their numbers they're more powerful than the much larger grass hoppers. I get the feeling you're not quite there yet.

Gordon:

bnzo:

"I know that the the Climate Changes with or without Humans.I am an Affirmatist."

stop me if I'm wrong here, but this is exactly the same point made by pretty much any climate scientist on the planet...

I'm not sure what your point is, to be honest. It seems you accused people of doing something they don't do. then tried to distinguish yourself from them by telling us you do something which, they actually DO do.

SMalL:

08 Oct 2013 10:21:30am

Small has different definitions.

Those who have money want small government to ensure that tax levels are low. They have resources and are media savvy to convince have-nots to support them. But interestingly these very people are usually also supporters of big and expensive armies.

Small government is a slogan to not avoid paying fair share for the good of the society.

James:

08 Oct 2013 6:06:47pm

I'm trying to fathom your point, given that Person A is paying a higher effective tax rate and more tax.

Out of curiosity, is Person A the son of a multi-millionaire who scored a cushy position of authority in his fathers company (because obviously it wouldn't be his mothers company now would it?), or is he a Vietnamese immigrant from the 70's who worked his fingers to the bone to create a business from scratch to support his family?

Is Person B a lazy university graduate coasting through life, or a disabled person working two jobs?

Does money really say anything about a human being?

I think what really needs to be asked of society is whether there is enough tax to ensure everyone can lead a dignified life. And if not, why not?

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 9:46:35pm

Always a good argument Rest of us but who can afford to pay the higher tax, who has the greatest net disposable income?

Capacity to pay is generally the basis on which income tax is determined, for the record those countries that have the most progressive tax systems and the lowest wealth and income differentials are generally the better places to live.

Net tax contribution is a meaningless concept, it illuminates nothing and advances no argument.

Science-Lover:

09 Oct 2013 11:10:59am

Person A on 500k will have more room to dodge their tax obligations. Wives (or husbands) as economic advisers, etc.Person B will usually be on PAYE and has no room to dodge their taxation burden.Person A will probably be only paying 10% taxation after all the perks have been used.

Chrism:

"Small government is a slogan to not avoid paying fair share for the good of the society."

And here I was thinking it was the mantra of those who object to being robbed by politicians so that they can buy votes from those who would rather have a free ride in life.

I don't mind being taxed. I do mind that so much money is wasted on bureaucracy, NGO's, sport, the arts, nanny state management, waste and duplication and providing for people who are entirely capable of looking after themselves or only have themselves to blame for their own situation (eg people who don't take out insurance or save for retirement.)

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 9:56:08pm

Okay Chrism, what would your small government provide?

Try and understand that the social compact, between government and electors, means that some of your taxes will be spent on things you don't approve of, it also includes the possibility that none of my taxes is spent on things I do approve (aka Climate Change Commissions).

By the way "small government" is the mantra of tax bludgers and you do mind paying taxes (so do I for that matter, and so I suspect do most people, however some of us just have more mature approach than the small government brigade)

Sydney Bob:

sir grumpalot:

08 Oct 2013 10:37:24am

Don't worry, government isn't going anywhere in a hurry even if the libertarians have their way. Why? Because government offers a huge pool of other people's money to play with, and nothing is more irresistable to those who hunger for wealth and power (regardless of what political banner they march under).

MACK1:

JoeBloggs:

08 Oct 2013 2:50:52pm

"Taxpayers shouldn't fund ...... any other evangelical movement"

So you think the current tax exemptions for evangelical organisations and the christian religious bodies generally should be withdrawn so that these money making organisations end up paying tax like all other money making organisation?

Felix:

Dave:

08 Oct 2013 3:01:43pm

Science requires funding, and has throughout history relied on public and private funding to happen. Climate science is science like any other, and it will deliver important results which will greatly impact on the future planning of Australia's agriculture and water resources. These are clearly vital to our ongoing existance in this country, and making the wrong decisons or no decisions may prove disastrous.

Just because you don't like what climate scientists say about the long-term situation on our planet doesn't mean they're not doing vital work to improve our medium-term economic and social situation in terms of food production and water. That sounds like a public good to me.

Dean:

08 Oct 2013 7:08:03pm

We as a society are not about to start listening to climate scientists, or any other scientists for that matter. There will be no forehead slapping moment where we admit that they were right, we will just blame them for not finding a solution to the problem in time.

As you say, "Climate science is science like any other", and like any other area of science the community will not accept solutions that involve cost or effort greater than the perceived short term benefit. When global warming does start to have undeniable impacts we will either turn to climate engineers, or others who can "climate proof" our lives.

Telling, coercing or forcing society to reduce CO2 emissions is not an acceptable solution. Global warming, and all of its consequences, are inevitable unless climate scientists or alternative energy researchers can come up with a better answer.

sdrawkcaB:

Toc:

09 Oct 2013 1:20:13am

I'm sure you'll remember that if a climate change induced event wipes out everything you own.Or even if there aren't enough fish left in the sea due to acidification.I'm sorry, no-one is going to be able to "order up" solutions to the problems we are creating for ourselves.By the way, Climate Change is only one of many problems we are facing.Good luck. You'll need it. Far better to fund the science to try and prevent the problems.Ah, I forgot. There aren't any problems now the LNP are in power.

Paully from Newcastle:

09 Oct 2013 2:59:03pm

DaveMy issue with the climate commission was we had a non expert heading it up.Prof Flannery is well qualified in his area of expertise, not in the science around climate change.His history or wild claims mean he's probably converted some people convinced in climate change back to being skeptics. (Brisbane Dams never filling pre flood, for example)

So I would happily donate to a body that the good Prof was not so prominate on.

I have no issue when people like Richard Dawkins also comment on climate change, but they are only more expert than your average person in that they understand the scientific method, not that they have been involved in researching the science themselves, but they shouldn't be the people heading up these panels & nor should they be taking the research & going over the top with alarmist claims (it allows the idiots on the other side look like the experts when they can point to the claim & show it to have been a joke)

Science-Lover:

new testament IPCC:

Lets face it SL, climate change is a new religion, the IPCC yet another denomination, Wind turbines the Green's iconic saviour.

And wasnt the Bible peer reviewed, just like the latest IPCC report ?

So better start building another organic ARK. Only science lovers and believers in orderly base pairs spirals will be admitted. Denialists and climate heathen are to be sacrificed to the flood. Greenpeace can renew their rainbow (registered trademark) for the benefit of future generations. Saint Bob Brown can then have a second coming. And his electric karma can be chased by his green dogma until the next ice age.

Heretic:

08 Oct 2013 6:06:10pm

Mack1:

I'd rather have the arts funded by taxpayers than the construction and maintenance of footy stadiums which contribute nothing positive to a nation's culture or international reputation. Nor would I like to see the continued funding of annual events, such as the Grand Prix which is costing taxpayers over 50 million dollars this year.

I don't use the so-called health system because I try to live responsibly but would nevertheless like to see the system funded by the taxpayer because it attempts to alleviate suffering for society at large.

How can you not feel some kind of solidarity with the community at large? Isn't solidarity and care for others the defining factors that form a civilisation?

Maynard:

rod:

08 Oct 2013 10:47:28am

Don't worry about being a freeloader, Paul. No heed is going to be paid to climate science in this country anyway, so the Climate Commission will do no good anyway. Australia will ultimately get the hiding it so deserves for its celebration of ignorance. Me? I've got dual citizenship for my children. They'll have a choice when first Australia's economy, then its food supply, then its society and lastly the lives of those formerly belonging to such a "society" go down the toilet.

Nick Sharp:

b Sharp:

08 Oct 2013 10:14:41pm

Which planet?

Tasmania of course, the orb to which the Greens from Mars migrated, but which they abandoned long ago, forsaking the benefits of genuine base load renewable hydro power for the greenscam intermittent and unaffordable wind powered dystopia of Denmark.

Kazza:

08 Oct 2013 3:56:40pm

Dear Paul

I don't have dual citizenship unfortunately so a pat on the back to you for thinking of your family. The climate deniers haven't woken up to the fact as yet how hard Australia is going to be effected. Our wonderful coming surplus under this government isn't going to be much good to us when we can't feed ourselves let alone export food. Mr Hunt hasn't explained in full that the coalition tree planting experiment that is suppose to capture carbon is as yet untested science.The CSIRO then said it has to be done on existing agricultural land. Those trees then have to be left there for at least 100 years. So much for that part of their Direct Action plan. Adopt me please, I'll do the dishes, promise

OntheRun:

08 Oct 2013 2:23:01pm

The role of defence is in the Australian Constitution. Next to every nation has it and considering it has already proved its value to Australia through its actions in previous world wars that where never predicted, it has a role. If you support a private defence force, please say so.

Considering we continue to fund climate research, the IPCC has had to change its models as warming predictions have not been reached and climate predictions in the past such as Global Cooling proved to be so accurate, I dont know why we should fund a body that preaches to people that already believe the work is essential.

Considering Tim Flannery cant agree on what the role of his institution was that is the same as the documents that created it, its better of in private hands.

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 6:48:11pm

OntheRun I don't mind people quoting the IPCC Report, but misquoting it destroys any credibility you may think you have. It did not say there was global cooling, it did say that the world continue to warm albeit not at the rate expected.

Chrism:

08 Oct 2013 6:08:48pm

"but why should scientific research about climate change have to depend upon charity?"

The climate Council, or the Climate Commission before it, didn't do scientific research. They were purely a propaganda unit with a mission to distort the science in a partisan way. The science was and is being done elsewhere; the Universities, CSIRO etc.

Andy:

R U Serious:

08 Oct 2013 5:58:50pm

Just for example, ACF says the Fuel Tax Credits scheme costs Australian taxpayers $5 billion a year, with $ 1.7 billion of this going to big mining companies. The Greens estimate that the Government will spend almost $14 billion in the next four years on fossil fuel subsidies to the big mining corporations.

Mycal:

09 Oct 2013 11:41:11am

Rebates are subsidies, they are a net benefit to those that receive them. However I have a better game for you than hair splitting, it's called counting angels on pinheads. How many have you got on yours?

Gordon:

09 Oct 2013 2:00:48pm

Absolutely. All extraction is taxed (the PRRT), the companies pay regular income tax, and almost all fuel sales are taxed heavily at point of sale (Fuel excise) on top of the GST. Net return to the taxpayer: billions. A small amount of sales escape the excise for the reasons you state, yet this is called an overall subsidy of the industry. Delusional.

You might as well say Coles is subsided because it sells non-GST food, but Harvey Norman's doesn't.

Renewable energy is mandated by legislation (RECs), directly subsidised (feed-in tariffs), and get various grants and loans on the never-never. Fine. There are many arguments FOR supporting renewables, but claiming the moral high ground on subsidies is just ridiculous.

R U Sirius:

08 Oct 2013 2:41:45pm

Here here.

And the same for the subsidies to the Wind Industry, a rort in Green clothing ruining neighbours lives (whilst complicit governments and parties like the Greens take the industry handouts). And barely touching carbon emissions in the process. And no, it isnt a fossil fuel conspiracy. Just ask AGL, who trumpet about wind, and push relentlessly for CSG, and bugger the neighbours whatever the energy source.

I dont hear any Greens asking for that! But that would be to bite the hands that fed them the over $1million in the failed bid to gain control of the senate and shore up their failing, dishonest wind spin industry.

R U Serious:

08 Oct 2013 6:02:30pm

Wind power is growing enormously overseas where energy prices are higher than Australia. At this time it is still the cheapest of the renewables, but solar will be cheaper than everything including coal within a decade. I don't understand what is meant by dishonesty in this comment.

R U Sirius:

08 Oct 2013 8:04:24pm

Dishonesty of the wind industry? Where to start!

Refusing to release acoustic monitoring data ie to demonstrate compliance.Refusing to participate in real time acoustic monitoringGagging hosts and those bought out secretly because of acoustic pollution.Claiming REC?s from the non compliant Waubra windfarm, as is on the public record, in breach of legislative requirementsWorking hand in glove with EPA?s to set acoustic compliance parameters ie protecting the industry ahead of human health, and compromising EPAs independence and integrity.Refusing to cooperate with independent acoustic monitoring and researchVictim blaming and ridiculing neighbours reporting adverse health impacts (or buying them out with secret gag clauses) as is on the public record at Toora and WaubraSystematically and routinely misrepresenting wind turbine name plate capacity as actual outputMaking unverifiable claims (in fact meaningless claims) that such and such a facility will power xx homes. Lack of transparency in community consultation process, when potential hosts are pre signed with gag clausesLying about acoustic emissions and human health impacts, hence rural community backlashDonations to political parties including the Greens, and universities thereby compromising frank and fearless assessment and action/research/analysis by such institutions. See the Adelaide University and treatment of masters student Wang for example.Attacking those who advocate for independent research on the acoustic emissions from turbines and adverse impacts on human health of neighbours. Such research was ?urgently? recommended by a senate committee Chaired by Greens Senator Siewert over 2 years ago. Nothing since.Dishonest wind industry? That is too kind a description, for what has become a favourite Mafia money laundering mechanism.Without subsidies eg REC they are not economically sustainable. It is dishonest in the extreme for the industry to claim they are 'cheap'. They are a Green con which will go the way of the statues on Easter Island.

R U Sirius:

09 Oct 2013 12:03:55pm

The burden of proof should lie with the industry to prove compliance with (compromised) EPA standards. There is no transparent availability of this data which is collected essentially by the industry/fox in charge of the hen house.

Waubra farm is non compliant, yet receives REC. This is on the Vic parliament record.

try NASA/Kelley 1985 /1987 for the first paper peer reviewed demonstrating cause effect/dose response of acoustic emissions from a single turbine causing adverse human health impacts. The science is emerging. The industry is trying to bury it. Acoustic pollution is a real problem in this industry, coal and CSG. Turbines need to be placed away from peoples homes, well away.

Science-Lover:

09 Oct 2013 11:25:28am

"Green con"What a dumb argument.Amazing how Britain is pushing ahead with north-sea wind farms. Were they conned? No, they are realistic.

There is no proof of damage to people from the wind farms.This was done by a climate-change denying group who told people what to expect and, bingo, it started to happen, but ONLY to the people who didn't have wind farms on their properties, and were willing to get out of unsustainable farming as an excuse.There were no cases of this damage until these unscrupulous people spread the rumours about these illnesses.

If you'd rather have CSG instead, ask farmers about the dangers of these gas fields on their farms.

Dean:

They are constantly asking for government subsidies to be cut! I think you are confusing libertarian with neo-conservatives.

Globally, most industry subsidies are for agriculture, followed by politically sensitive (ie. unionised) manufacturing industries.

The fossil fuel subsidies in Australia are all rebates (ie. returning the tax already paid). It would be similar to the government putting a 30% tax on top off all solar panels and rebating it to businesses that had bought them so overall the tax only applied to domestic consumers.

Mycal:

Gordon:

09 Oct 2013 2:16:45pm

No mate, a subsidy is when you get paid to do something that by itself wouldn't happen. Sheltered workshops for the disabled, The car industry, the defence construction industry, that kind of thing. The fuel excise rebate is not a subsidy of the fossil fuel industry. It is a recognition that farmers, fishermen, factories, and yes, miners, shouldn't pay a road tax for off-road engines. You could get rid of the rebate tomorrow and what would happen is farmers & fishermen would go broke or put up their prices, as indeed would the miners. Net result, Aust would lose export business & we'd lose a few more farmers as our customers bought elsewhere.

R U Serious:

Prognosis:

08 Oct 2013 6:18:48pm

Fossil fuels are the life blood of modern civilisation and all the benefits that come with that civilisation.The last 100, or indeed 300 years of climate are not exceptional. More and more people are getting this. The CAGW church is still in denial.

Science-Lover:

Chrism:

This right wing libertarian is quite happy to call for the end of any subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Of course I would also call for the abolition of all the discriminatory taxes levied on the fossil fuels too, such as the excise tax levied on petrol before GST is added.

And of course we would also have to remove all the subsidies to other energy sources such as solar and wind.

I think, at the end of the days, you will find in Australia the "subsidy to the fossil fuel industry" is a delusion of the greens. Most of the so called "subsidy" is in fact a subsidy to regional Australians trying to compensate them for the higher freight costs they face.

Prognosis:

08 Oct 2013 6:36:07pm

Except the ABC is simply a platform for recycling lefty talking points, inhabited overwhelmingly by lefty true believers. IE not journalists investigating from all sides without fear or favour. IE not following the charter upon which they are entrusted with people's taxes.

CAGW is a theory. A theory shot to pieces.

Fossil fuels are the life blood of our civilisation. Without fossil fuels our lives would be dirty, dangerous and short. Make no mistake about that.

Lawrie:

Alpo:

08 Oct 2013 3:22:53pm

Smaller Government is crap. Only the collective effort of everybody's taxes can achieve very big and very expensive goals that can then be enjoyed by everybody.... at low individual cost. For everything else, unleash the creative power of the individual initiative by all means.Climate change programs require a core strategy that must be public. Private institutions and specific individuals can fill niche gaps wherever they like.The mixed economy rules, John.

Aria:

08 Oct 2013 5:56:14pm

"Climate council proves it that public donations can support even ABC."

The ABC required approximately $1 billion of funding in 2012-13. The Climate council raised $1 million in a few weeks. Your logic is completely unrealistic. If the ABC was so enormously popular that it could be funded entirely by donations, this would suggest it perhaps shouldn't be defunded in the first place.

Your general "small government" argument, like many others, ignores the purpose of the government in providing certain public goods. The purpose of the ABC is not to be a bureaucratic waste of tax money, quite obviously. The purpose of the ABC is to provide those programs that private broadcasters do not have much incentive to. Minority voices. Cultural programs. Regional programs. Because our society embraces all its members.

Donating to support a public service is equivalent to paying taxes for the government to provide public services. It's what the government's for, along with providing law & order, and so on. Propping something up with donations because it's important for the greater good is a clear sign that perhaps the government should be providing it.

"The billion dollar tax funding ABC gets can be better directed elsewhere like reducing the size of budget deficit."

I am utterly sick of this argument. Please present a proper argument based on economic theory regarding reductions in budget deficits. They do exist. But they are certainly not endlessly repeated copies of "government wastes money". As for my side, you'll find that Keynesian economics provides a very clear explanation as to why budget deficits are not inherently bad and scary.

"ABC should not be running scared of it."

The author is not employed by the ABC. If that was not your implied evidence, one would expect you to provide some.

SharonM:

08 Oct 2013 11:44:09am

Paul, I couldn't agree more! The conservative passion for shrinking government services will likely take us to a grim place. But it's not a new phenomenon. You said in regard to health care '...the last resort is not a social safety net but a private one: charity.'

This applies across the board, not just for health care. Where public welfare provision for an individual is inadequate or non-existent, it's our charities that attempt to fill the void: providing for the homeless, paying bills for struggling householders, subsidising education for kids in low-income families, and so on. It's the diligence of these charities that lets government off the hook.

We'll see it even more now the overseas aid budget has been cut: more stress than ever will be placed on Oxfam, Medicine sans Frontieres, etc. And will the shortfall ever be made up if aid is increased in the future? I won't be holding my breath - it hasn't happened that way locally.

It's wonderful that charities step up when needed, but who is it funding the charities? Who funds the Smith Family, the Climate Council and the Queensland Literary Awards? Is it the filthy rich, shedding their excess funds? Some, perhaps, but much also comes from those of us whose income only just allows it. Why? Maybe because we've been there, and we know what it's like to struggle. Or maybe it's that weird thing called social conscience ... and that even weirder thing called ethics. Maybe it's that weird belief in science and those who practise it; the belief that, while all the facts may not be known and while some years the data might seem to belie current thinking, the likelihood is high - 95% and counting - that climate change is a reality that we must deal with as a matter of urgency.

Pity our governments don't suffer from these types of weirdness. Pity they don't have their eye on the big picture, enabling them to look past the election cycle to see the society they're creating for their descendants.

If they wait too long we may lose the opportunities climate change gives us, to create a cleaner economy along with a cleaner environment - the two aren't mutually exclusive!

DonationNoMore:

In about 2003, it became evident to me the right wing wingnuts were going to prevail.

From then I started divest myself of my volunteering efforts and cease donations.I havent done either since 2009.

My view is right wing politics is just as inbred as left. With that, I though why should I be the one propping up a dud system. I though why let the government transfer its responsibilities on to people like me. Worse was how they get on the box and crow about budget surplus whilst simultaneously transferring their expenditure onto the public whilst maintaining the same total tax take.

Curious party:

09 Oct 2013 10:08:33am

Yeah, I agree. I agree so much that I'd happily go and take Costello's job for $100 000. Never mind that I have no business experience, have no media experience, and do not share the religious view of the organisation. Never mind that I have no experience in charity work or any real knowledge of the issues that WVA are trying to address.

I would be interested to see a comparison between Costello's salary and that of an equivalent-sized for-profit company's CEO.

R.Ambrose Raven:

08 Oct 2013 11:44:31am

Privatisation in fact has a very hostile public. Experience of the flog-offs of the last three decades has won hostility rather than support from those in the best position to judge - those who consume them. Compare and contrast the effective simplicity of the Old Age Pension with the horrendous cost and gross failures of the privatisation of the pension (superannuation)!

Even after - perhaps more correctly, especially after - twenty years of flogging-off as a core principle, a 2001 survey found that 88% felt that public services should not be run on a profit making basis. Indeed, an ANU poll run periodically since 1984 shows consistently that the more a voter believes service standards are declining in either health or education, the more they are inclined to support increased government spending and involvement.

Today, three decades later, public opinion on flog-offs holds very consistently to three broad conclusions.

Firstly, there is a very strong view that private sector firms should not be allowed to provide public services. In recent debates about power prices, only 5% of respondents (Labor / Lib/Nat / Greens 4% / 7% / 2%) thought that to "Privatise electricity generators and distributors that are currently government-owned" would reduce prices.

Secondly, there is a mixed view about whether or not and on what basis non-government groups should be involved in the delivery of public services.

Thirdly, experience of the flog-offs of the last two decades has won hostility rather than support from those they were claimed to help the most - those who consume them. Opposition typically comprises four-fifths of those sampled. In the case of hospitals (7%) and prisons (2%), support for privatisation doesn't even reach double figures. It's hard to find an essential service that voters think is better operated by the private than the public sector.

Peter:

R.Ambrose Raven:

08 Oct 2013 5:44:19pm

But what choice is there?

Keneally correctly identified the cause of these landslide defeats of the NSW and Queensland government in 2011 and 2012 respectively as "the decision to undertake 'surprise' privatisations of state assets" - not that either she or Beattie ever apologised for their deceits. In Queensland, the surprise was made worse by the fact that it was announced only weeks after an election in which the government had promised the exact opposite.

In the case of Bligh and Keneally Labor, what was striking was Bligh and Keneally's utter indifference to their destruction of their own governments; it actually seems that they were so besotted with economic fundamentalist ideology that they appear to regard themselves as martyrs.

Chrism:

08 Oct 2013 2:10:57pm

"We can continue to enjoy quality, independent climate change data "

What a joke. The climate Commission was never an "independent" body dispensing quality dispassionate information on the science of climate change. It was always the propaganda arm of the Green-Labor climate change program, staffed by hand picked zealots who routinely published highly exaggerated and biased reports contradicted by the actual science as published by bodies such as the IPCC.

If people want to fund a body like that, they are entitled to, just as they are entitled to fund One Nation or Sea Shepherd. The taxpayer should not have to.

"....but it is also a system that asks the few to pay for the benefit of the many."

Sounds a lot like the tax system. Most people in our community are free riders. The receive far more in benefits than that pay in rates and taxes. There is nothing just about asking a small proportion of people to pay for more and more goodies for everyone else. It is simply theft parading in the whitewashed clothes of democracy.

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 7:06:05pm

Taxation has always been theft Chism, it's how it's extracted, from whom and why that is important. Clearly you would prefer no taxes in a dog eat dog, spoils to the winner dystopian world. Fortunately the majority of us prefer what we have, a Commonwealth (ponder that word, it's in our Constitution and it means "common wealth") with a progressive taxation system.

And there is everything "just" about asking the wealthiest to pay proprtionately more taxes than the poorest amongst us. The difference between our poorest and our richest is way to big already.

Chrism:

Of course you do. The majority is receiving far more in benefits than they are paying in taxes. That doesn't justify the majority oppressing the minority.

As I have expressed elsewhere on this page I am quite happy to pay taxes sufficient to pay for essential services, education for all, and a decent safety net for those who cannot support themselves. However as government grows and grows supplying ever more goodies to ever more people who can afford to support themselves and buy the services the government is supplying, as I see ever more waste, ever more duplication between federal and state government and ever more bureaucrats administering ever more petty and unnecessary regulation, I say enough. Time to wind back government. I couldn't think of no better place to start than axing the propagandists of the climate commission.

Mycal:

09 Oct 2013 11:45:21am

Well fortunately Chrism yoy don't get to decide what is an is not an essential service. It's part of the social compact that taxes will be expended on things that some of us don't like (or in the case of the Climate Council, not expended on things some of us do like).

All of us pay raxes, some of us get rebates, that's how it's supposed to work.

Andy:

How about the ABC? Let it be funded like the PBS in the states by sponsors and private donors who see value in the style of reportage that it provides, and the political leanings it has.

After all, why should a taxpayer base that is far broader politically than is reflected in the viewpoints presented on the ABC have to bankroll a media outlet that vilifies and mocks them?

Then again, we'd better be polite in asking for ABC reform, lest the chaser show us shagging dogs in a satirical form that is apparently ok as it was done to an opponent of the ABC and the chaser has "undergraduate" humour.

Mycal:

"After all, why should a taxpayer base that is far broader politically than is reflected in the viewpoints presented on the ABC have to bankroll a media outlet that vilifies and mocks them?"

Just because the ABC does not support your views Andy, does not mean that it doesn't represent and reflect the views of the greatest majority of Australians. Besides which it regularly features articles by the extreme right (or are you telling me that you don't agree with Chris Berg and the IPA or Peter Rieth?).

I find it strange that one so dedicated to the contest of ideas and the combat of politics would advocate that tax payers should not fund a democratic process. But then you have never had an idea and you are not a believer in democracy are you Andy.

Andy:

09 Oct 2013 9:08:21am

The drum is (to be fair) pretty good at having a wide range of ideas represented.

ABC radio and TV aren't. Either in the way their hosts treat conservative guests, or in the views the hosts peddle. My views aren't that extreme. They may be right of where many on the drum are, but are pretty regular for LNP supporters. In the free market of ideas they should get as much airtime given they are held by close to 50% of the population, as the labor-leaning material normally presented.

Compare the fine tooth comb the ABC is pulling through the coalition with the kid gloves they gave the ALP for the first several years of its last government. That level of scrutiny of politics and politicians is good, but should be meted out evenly.

I'm not sure how you conflate a critique of the perceived groupthink in ABC with democracy. All ideas should be expressed and compete with each other in the free market of ideas. As a state funded organ, the ABC owes it to all citizens to do that. A privately funded organisation doesn't owe the same duty as its constituency members are its subscribers and shareholders.

Curious party:

09 Oct 2013 10:12:57am

"In the free market of ideas they should get as much airtime given they are held by close to 50% of the population, as the labor-leaning material normally presented."

And given that the ABC only comprises of a small proportion of the media's 'free market of ideas' it would make sense if the ABC did present a different slant than, say, the Murdoch rags so as to provide that balance that you are in favour of.

OntheRun:

This sounds very much like the argument for compulsory union membership.

I know what Tim Flannery was trying to achieve, but why it is not covered already by other departments alludes me.

If people value a service, they should pay for it, especially when the service is superficial and of questionable quality. The CSIRO, IPCC, BoM, Department of Environment and many other bodies already provide a wealth of information. If the public is not trusting the reports and conclusions from these departments, why would it trust it from another?

The Climate Commission was a wasteful joke used to help justify the price on carbon. It was never meant to be apolitical and it still will not be as funded by the public.

Paul Taylor:

08 Oct 2013 2:22:54pm

The problem with small-government libertarians is that they are unduly influenced by the plutocracy & rarely exhibit an ability to restructure government services through innovation, imagination & creativity...they are not lateral thinkers; they do not look outside the box, economics is paramount, business knows best & subsequently they do not look holistically (economically, socially , environmentally) at the implications & consequences of their actions.

It does not matter that corporatized Medibank Private or Australia Post can match it with the best of private enterprise...ideologically they should be privatised. Privatisation of government assets is disguised in the form of leaseholds or tendering out government services to the private sector with a consequential breakdown in communication synergies between government departments ( eg. IBM & QLD Health)....the original purpose to save government money, actually operating in reverse in many instances in the medium to long term.

Take Australia?s state & territory travel centres. How much more effective would they be if the Federal, State & Territory governments, in each of the state & territory capital cities, packaged their travel centres as part of a national , iconic & physical marketing infrastructure as tourist attractions in their own right: architecturally stunning & symbolic, carbon neutral designed buildings built on prime government land interlinking with public transport; utilizing the full gamut of Australian Arts, Sciences & digital technologies...showcases of the visual & performing arts to promote Australia as a whole whilst maintaining the independence of the states & territories; privately funded with competitive tendered leasehold agreements, with private enterprise spending multi 100 millions to construct, maintain & operate over a multiple year period, whilst incorporating user pays private income generating attractions like separate advertising, cafeterias, restaurants, theatres (performing, special effects, cinemas), display & theme rooms etc. You instigate an international design competition just like was done for the Sydney Opera House but covering multiple capital cities in Australia. You actually create leaseholds, not sell existing actual government assets (like ports in NSW) as leaseholds to private enterprise....BUT tell that to government, I have been trying for over 25 years starting with Darling Harbour back in the 1980s.

The powerful & funded lobby groups in the tourist industry are obviously against progressive change & simply want to maintain the status quo & governments find it just too hard to appreciate the extra billions (directly & indirectly) that a national approach could generate for govt. revenue.

Robert:

08 Oct 2013 2:26:38pm

Are private donors really rushing into the fill the gap? I think not. They no longer can milk the taxpayer and the climate zealots will quickly dry up when they realize how much money it will cost them. In a year it will be gone as it should be.

TC:

08 Oct 2013 2:38:44pm

"I'm sure many Australians were pleased to see the incoming Abbott Government's efforts to axe the Climate Commission thwarted by the generosity of private citizens." No, I was not. The Climate Commissin is a fraud. I do not want my hard earned money (taxes) going to fund Tm Flannery who is a kook, and who has made a number of dud climate preditctions that the gullible chose to treat as gospel. He was paid $180,000 a year for a part-time role spreading his disaster stories!

Sonya Z:

08 Oct 2013 3:04:11pm

Global warming alarmists should never worry about the finances. There are many vested interests which will be providing finances for anyone spreading the global warming scam. For example, Merchant Bankers and global stock markets expect over two trillion dollars tradeable commodity. For that money they will invest in anyone who would help them achieve such bonanza. Not to mention the already huge army of people who owe their living to the global warming propaganda. I wish Flannery would publish the names of his donors and you would find that there would be very few 'concerned citizens' and many more vested interests.

I wish people would be smart enough just to pause and think. Please try to make any connection between our carbon tax and global warming. I mean how much our 9 billion dollars of carbon tax annually, affect the global CO2 emission and how much does it affect the global warming. If it is only for symbolism, it is a rather expensive symbolism - 9 billion dollars worth annually.

Nevertheless, my voice will be swamped with vested interests and the already brainwashed people, who actually believe that the money they pay for carbon tax makes any relevance to environment. What relevance?!!!

I wish people would just pause and think a little. They would realise that the global warming scam is the most aggressive and deceptive propaganda ever. AGW alarmists continue to talk about Barrier Reef and Polar ice cap, but no one ever tries to tell us the relationship of such global phenomenon with our carbon tax. How many square maters of the polar ice cap do we save with our 9 billion dollars of carbon tax?!!! How much will we reduce global warming and what global benefits will it bring?!!!

Alpo:

08 Oct 2013 6:07:55pm

"There are many vested interests which will be providing finances for anyone spreading the global warming scam."... Ha, ha, funny Sonya. Do you have any idea of the size of the fossil fuels international business? Those companies not only make a fortune each year from their sales but, on top of that, they receive trillions in government subsidies.... No wonder they are totally hysterical trying to stop scientists from killing their milk cow, at the expense of everybody else.... I hope that at least you get a little nanoshare of their profits, because if you are writing on their behalf for free then I can only shake my head...We are pausing and thinking Sonya, I invite you to start doing the same....

Sonya Z:

08 Oct 2013 7:25:38pm

'Alpo' are you aware that most fossil fuel miners and users actually support the ETS. (BHP and the Origin Energy, just to mention few.) I have never seen a corporate CEO who would do anything that would reduce income to their shareholders. Try to explain that one. If you make people believe that transfer of their funds, via carbon tax/ETS, to the global stock markets, there is enough money to be made by so many corporations. You and I can feel good thinking that we are doing something for our environment, while they get rich with our money. Good thinking!

Dave:

08 Oct 2013 7:58:33pm

Sonya, they support the ETS because they know carbon pricing is inevitable and the ETS makes better sense than many models. They just want the issue resolved so they can get on with their business with certainty.

If you seriously think that if BHP or anyone in the mining sector had access to accepted SCIENTIFIC evidence that an ETS was not necessary they'd still support it you are mad.

Sonya Z:

08 Oct 2013 9:02:30pm

Dave, one needs to be totally brainwashed by the AGW propaganda to believe that transferring over two trillion dollars form the individual energy users to the Merchant bankers and global market speculators, would some how save our Barrier Reef and the Polar Ice Cap. In many cases we are not even considering reduction in CO2 emission. It is apparently enough to pay higher electricity bills, so that Power company can buy carbon credits in China on the global stock markets and everyone is happy. Polar Ice cap becomes OK. This is so, so naive that it boggles mind how gullible people can be.

As far as corporate CEOs are concerned; Do you realise that they have statutory obligation not to do anything which could adversely affect their shareholders value. Obviously they expect some share in the profits generated by the wealth transfer from the individual power users to the global stock market.

Pity many people cannot see it. I guess that is why they are being successful with the AGW propaganda.

1) Basic economic theory - tragedy of the commons. Suppose everyone thought this way. "We're not going to make a difference". Result: nothing gets done, and we face major problems as a world.

2) Contrary to what you seem to believe, we are not "going it alone". When the European Union has a collective carbon pricing mechanism, when China has billions of dollars invested in renewables, we should do our part to reduce emissions. Nationalism doesn't exactly work when we're facing global issues.

3) In an economic sense, we should be encouraging our carbon-intensive industries to transition. Even if carbon emissions weren't an issue, I'm fairly sure most of us agree depletion of fossil fuels and peak oil are. Incentivising investment in renewables is good economic sense. In addition, given the vast investments in renewables in China as I have mentioned, it seems like a good idea to start.

Finally, preemptively dismissing any opposition you get as "brainwashed people", "vested interests" and participants in a "scam" does not, surprisingly, help your argument.

Dave:

08 Oct 2013 7:18:31pm

Thanks to Sonya Z for inadvertently highlighting a much bigger point.

Whatever 'vested interests' support carbon trading, the rewards for successfully and scientifically knocking off the existing climate models which show a very strong link to climate change being man-made and disastrous for humanity are far, far greater.

Any scientist who comes up with modelling which can be shown to be more accurate and robust than existing models and which shows we can relax about carbon pollution will be an instant billionaire many times over.

Climate science may currently receive support from the renewable energy sector, but it's important to note that the fossil fuels scientists have GIVEN UP trying to scientifically oppose the existing climate models. The fossil fuel sector and other manufacturing industries who are the 'losers' in a carbon tax scenario are collectively worth FAR MORE than the renewables sector and they'll happily pay to have this debate go away.

So Sonja, get into the lab, show us all how it's really done, have your work peer reviewed and enjoy your billions in rewards and have a great life.

Else, just give up on a fight that the intelligent end of town gave up on years ago.

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 7:27:23pm

I doubt, Sonya Z, that your voice will be "swamped with vested interests" because you have nothing much to say, just a repeat of the usual spin from no nothing denialists.

You want to know the connection between our carbon tax and the global warming? Read the literature! But just one example, the oceans are absorbing both heat and CO2, the former cause coral beaching and kills reefs, the later makes the oceans more acidic and destroys the limestone remains. I have seen the barrier reef and and I have seen bleached reefs. One had enormous bilogical diversity, the later had one fish and he was just passing through.

No one ever claimed that Australia's carbon tax was going to save the world from global warming but it was intended to do three things. Reduce our carbon footprint, force us to adopt low carbon industry and, along with many other nations, demonstrate a committment to carbon reduction.

And yes, I wish people would pause and think a little, more to the point I wish you would pause and think a little. You will no doubt discover it to be a new and unique experience.

Sonya Z:

08 Oct 2013 8:22:42pm

My 'invitation' to 'pause and think' obviously is not working for you. You choose to blindly follow the AGW propaganda.

You agree that our carbon tax will not 'save the world' which is perhaps your way of saying that it will do absolutely nothing to improve global environment. Then you go into symbolism of 'reducing our carbon footprint..' a ridiculous American terminology which means absolutely nothing. I wish you could do some independent thinking and tell me whether symbolism of 'carbon footprint' is worth 9 billion dollars annually we pay in carbon tax.

Did you know that Labor's Carbon Pricing legislation projects that the only way to achieve the 5% carbon emission commitment by 2020 would be to spend 3.5 billion dollars buying the corrupt overseas carbon credits. By 2050 the amount we would be spending buying carbon credits overseas would climb up to 150 billion dollars. A country which has the cleanest air on earth with the smallest concentration of CO2, would be paying countries like China, who is one of the most polluted countries in the world 150 billion dollars for carbon credits. Yes, China is the biggest supplier of carbon credit to the EU carbon market. All that while China increases its carbon output by over 750 million tonnes annually. That is more than our entire annual emission.

You still don't see anything wrong with the system?!!! Well it appears that you never will.

Mycal:

"My 'invitation' to 'pause and think' obviously is not working for you. You choose to blindly follow the AGW propaganda"

Well maybe, but mostly I just read the science and draw my own conclusions.

The carbon foot print may be a symbol to you but for me it is the measurable amount of CO2 released per capita from human activities. Is it worth $9 billion? I don't know because the figures aren't in on the damage that climate change will actually do. We will only "know" after it is to late, but the best estimates (according to the propagandists - with degrees in economics "The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change" Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics) is that the gloabl cost of Climate Change 100's of trillions. Remediation of and adaptive responses to climate change will cost only a few percentage points of global GDP.

So what it amounts to is that your paused thinking amounts to risking 100's of trillions of dollars to save a few percentage points of existing GDP. Hardly a sensible risk management strategy, if I tried that logic in my job I'd be fired and so would you.

As for the "system" the inadequacy of the European implementation of an ETS doesn't change the fact that such schemes are economically sound and have a history of success.

tonyM:

08 Oct 2013 8:04:00pm

I'll wager that not many people are aware that 10% of our $9 billion p.a. CO2 tax goes straight to the UN.

Yep, this alarmist propaganda is a gravy train whose momentum is defined by the amount of gravy loaded multiplied by the speed of disbursement to the high priests and acolytes. Just ask Al Gore who has become a billionaire out of this gravy train. Not a bad effort at all.

Contrary to the author's views, Big Oil is in on gravy train by lobbying Govts for more subsidies for renewable energy. They see a business opportunity; they see profit..

Add this to the other vested interests you name and it is a veritable gravy train scam all in the name of a gas that is essential for life where any increase is hardly able to lift the T much at all ? even on the strongest viagra. It's a dud alarmist hypothesis without empirical evidence to support it.

Yep, such a gravy train provides a lot of incentive to believe in catastrophic effects for people from all walks of life. Add the feel good factor of ?saving the planet? and a lot of gullible people are sucked in.

virgil:

08 Oct 2013 3:05:30pm

Defunding the Climate Commission was a special case & was pushed through quickly for the political message it sent ("thank you for your votes denialists"). However it is (pardon the analogy) just the warm up. Stripping funding from other NGOs with an environmental/community focus will follow, but overhauling environmental legislation via the EPBC Act will be the LNP's show stopper. Big business will be rewarded at the expense of the environment.

Dean:

08 Oct 2013 3:13:30pm

What if, instead of shutting down the Climate Commission, the Abbott government had cut its funding down to the level now being raised through donations?

While I have libertarian leanings, I still believe that we should have a government run Climate Commission. However, as with any government department / program, nobody ever takes a realistic look at what could still be achieved with significantly fewer resources if traditional assumptions and practices were challenged and all options made available.

If the Abbott government had maintained the Climate Commission but cut its funding would Tim Flannery and his colleagues have displayed the same passion and creativity now being demonstrated in forming the Climate Council? If not, why not?

mick:

08 Oct 2013 3:26:14pm

its a perfect solution for the Climate Club to establish a special private funding model to experiment with steam punk wave generators and cloud capture and storage ideas and solar panels hung from balloons. The new flannery climate club can develop all the new ideas it likes without robbing the taxpayers. Those who dont want this can opt in and those others can opt out. A just solution to fund these fringe organisations.

sdrawkcaB:

08 Oct 2013 7:20:05pm

Luckily for us all, such thinking was not applied to oil and steam when they were in their infancy.

The king of Holland wanted the land to be drained and so it was steam. Holland never looked back.Today, many people think like you so the great building projects are now a thing of the past. Market solutions simply do not do such large scale and altruistic projects.

What's that:

08 Oct 2013 3:34:44pm

So then we should not donate to fundraising by hospitals or volunteer because that is the governments job? I agree but the government is not going to fund everything that needs funding so the public has to help out or we will lose them.

tonyM:

Rather a tortured analogy of little relevance to suggest a similarity between the US Govt issue and shutting a superfluous Commission that few will miss.

Flannery's dams unlikely to ever fill and rivers unlikely to run predictions still resonate as would be the decisions to construct expensive desal plants on the east coast.

The Climate Council acting from one preconceived viewpoint can hardly be described as independent. It does no research or independent scientific analysis of the evidence. As a group it does little other than regurgitate a sanitised version of IPCC views except it is still in the dark ages believing in ?consensus science? and ?science is settled.? Not even the IPCC suggests this as evidenced by the many unknowns and failed models.

Total waste of money that could have gone to charitable institutions with far more useful outcomes. I am content not to have access to its views so certainly don't feel like a free loader. Others who feel they get value should consider doubling or trebling their contribution.

As for your assertion that skeptical views, deniers according to you, are funded by Big Oil would you care to provide evidence. The last I heard was that Shell was exhorting the EU for continued or increased subsidies for renewable energy. The two positions seem logically inconsistent. Care to comment.

Captain Col:

08 Oct 2013 5:07:37pm

Paul Karp should do some more research to allay his fears of the political right. Let's go to his most egregious errors - regarding the shutdown in the US.

The only body authorised to allocate funds to government programs is the House of Representatives - the one controlled by the Republicans. The President isn't authorised, the Senate isn't authorised and the President's appointed minsters (secretaries) - they are the bodies controlled by the Democrats.

That's the constitution. That's the law. That's also the convention. So if the Republican controlled body wants to not fund a government activity, it is perfectly within its right to do so. In this case the ONLY government activity it doesn't want to fund is Obamacare. It has proposed funding for all other government activity but been thwarted by the Democrats who want the lot in one "clean" authority and have refused to accept funding the rest of government because they want to make a statement. They are the ones who have cause the shutdown.

Captain Col:

08 Oct 2013 7:46:36pm

My fears of the political left are well justified. The political left loves spending much more than it has to spend. Let me count the examples; Australia under Labor, US under Democrats, UK under 'wets' from almost all parties, EU under a myriad of do-gooder parties, then on to Venezuela under Chavez, ... And the list goes on ...

Aria:

Your fears of the political left are almost certainly not justified if you begin your argument with an enormous generalisation about an entire half of politics.

In addition, you haven't actually responded to my point about the current US shutdown, on which my statement (which parodied your opening assertion) was based.

Finally, let's respond to your series of examples.

1. Australia under Labor. I would have been more convinced if your argument was based in some economic rationale. As it stands, Labor's recent budget deficits make perfect economic sense in Keynesian terms. Labor does not "love spending much more than it has". Indeed, their abortive attempt at a surplus in fact reflects the position of both major parties to maintain budget surpluses over the medium term.

2. US under Democrats. When a large majority of the current US debt issue is judged to be the result of Bush tax cuts and spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than any spending by Obama, this example doesn't hold water.

3. UK and EU. I'd like to see some actual examples, in addition to not lumping an entire continent together. If you're able to provide a solid example of needless spending/budget deficits in a time of economic growth, I would happily agree with you that policy was poor.

4. Venezuela. It is not logical to compare advanced to developing economies. Nor is it logical to characterise the entire "political left" in the same terms as the very socialist Chavez.

Captain Col:

09 Oct 2013 11:21:49am

Aria, you might have avoided the giveaway lefty line "Labor's recent budget deficits make perfect economic sense in Keynesian terms." That's where you went wrong and I'm sad to say you need a good lesson or two in economics.

I'll help by saying spending government money on frivolous make-work projects (you know the ones I'm talking about) are NEVER good for an economy. They are just waste and leave us with a mountain of debt and nothing productive to show for it. Labor had no plan to repay the debt and never delivered on its countless "ironclad" promises to even get one surplus.

I can't let you get away with the bit about US debt either. The debt is caused by spending more than they earn. They are still doing it and there's no plan to ever stop. They are addicted. Current spending is mostly for a myriad of social programs. Big problem if lenders stop lending to them.

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 10:17:54pm

... and yet the GFC and recent assorted financial meltdowns have all been caused by the right ... threating not to renew the "debt cap" cost the US it's AAA rating last time and still financial Armageddon looms. I also read some where that the obscenely rich have squirrelled away unpaid tax obligations that would more than pay for the various deficits around the world.

Victor of Kew:

08 Oct 2013 5:12:13pm

Glad to see the Climate Commission go, obviously Government funding is unnecessary. Will there be transparency in the Climate Council and can we see were the funding is being sourced. If its union dollars have they permission of the members?

And following on the ABC is spending my tax dollars in areas that are unnecessary and is not providing balance. However more importantly its entertainment value is diminishing while it funds unnecessary news services. Programming is relying on repeats, second rate series have become the norm.

Like the Climate Commission parts of the ABC should be closed down, there are so many areas of diverse opinion (eg the guardian, the conversation, David Marr's blog.)

Pam O:

Paul, could you please provide us with the list of your generous donors. I believe that it will show only a small number of 'concerned citizens' and the majority of money provided by vested interests.

AGW scaremongering has enormous capital of vested interests that will invest in anyone and anything forwarding their cause. There is over two trillion dollars in tradeable commodity to be added to the global stock markets. There are thousands people currently employed in the AGW industry who owe their living to the AGW propaganda. That is why even a totally discredited organisation such as "Climate Commission" will easily get funds to continue their propaganda.

Margy:

08 Oct 2013 6:05:33pm

I am one who gave financial support to the Climate Council. And I would like nothing better than those eminent scientists telling me things aren't as grim as I fear. This isn't about political ideology. It's about my and your grandchildren not paying for our mistakes. A lower carbon future can't harm anyone.

reaver:

08 Oct 2013 7:41:21pm

Tell that to the developing world, Margy. Do feel free to tell them that they shouldn't develop using cheap, easy to use fossil fuels, but don't be surprised if they ignore you. Rich, white Westerners saying "I'm sorry, but you can't improve your standard of living and feed your hungry children today because we're scared of a 4 degree increase in the world's average temperature in 100 years" isn't a message that they're going to care about and they're going to go right on ahead and develop regardless of your thoughts on the matter. That's the reason why any reductions on our parts are totally in vain. Any reductions we make will be immediately nullified by the increases of the many, many more elsewhere.

Toc:

09 Oct 2013 1:37:31am

Ummm, excuse me.But if every one is buying, or trying to buy a finite resource, how will it be cheap? And where does that leave those poor third world countries with little money.Just asking, that's all.Sell your V8 now. Avoid the rush.

reaver:

09 Oct 2013 11:11:02am

We've got hundreds of years of gas, oil and coal reserves, Toc, a vast quantity of which are in the developing world. The demand for a "no carbon future" is a demand that developing countries give up the opportunity to use their own resources that they can access in order to rely on technology that they can't produce.

reaver:

08 Oct 2013 6:11:05pm

Wow, where to start?The Tea Party members of the US House of Reps aren't refusing to pass a budget. They're demanding to pass one as required by the US Constitution, something that hasn't been done since Obama took office.The supporters of the Climate Commission already had a chance to convince the rest of us to agree with their position and a mechanism for proving and affirming that agreement. It was an election. They failed.Ultimately the one and only criterion of whether a government service is worthy of taxpayer funding is if it has the support of the electorate who are expected to pay for it. If the public doesn't support something and votes for a party that promises to de-fund it then it will be de-funded and none of the complaining of the "The government needs to do something!" crowd will change that.

Hudson Godfrey:

Of course the Tea Party rump of the GOP are refusing to pass the budget. And the matter is pertinent to what's being said here because what is at stake seems to be whose bidding politicians are doing.

In the case of climate change we have a genuine difference of opinion that we in Australia have struggled with and may see value both in recognising through taxpayer funded science and privately funded activism. But activism and science in an advisory capacity are two very different things. Personally I saw value in having that advisory capacity, and recognise that we will probably have to take it from wherever we can get it from and whomever we can trust if our government refuses to fund those fact finding efforts. But I'm very unsure about it becoming a publicly funded lobby group that could lose its independence.

Whereas it seems clear to anyone from the detached standpoint we enjoy here in Australia that what is going on with Congress in the US partially shutting down government is a matter of pursing illegitimate partisan efforts to ensure affordable healthcare is stopped. Not only is the already enacted in law over a year ago, and certified to be constitutional by a hostile bench of the supreme court, but Obama was re-elected in the interim with his mandate to deliver healthcare intact.

What shutting down the government selectively actually entails is that the politicians still get paid but people in need of life saving medical care or welfare support are quite literally defunded without notice. If that doesn't tell you that these republicans have been bought off by health insurers then I don't know what does?

There in a nutshell we have everything that is wrong and not to be trusted about politically lobbying in the United States that we don't want to bring here and should work against endorsing even in the case if the former climate change commission lest what is good for the goose in some small way be turned into a shopping expedition of massive proportions by the gander!

reaver:

09 Oct 2013 1:47:22am

No, Hudson, do the research. The Tea Party is refusing to pass yet another continuing resolution which is what they've been using instead of passing any actual budgets. The Tea Party Republicans want to pass a budget (A) because it's required by the US Constitution and (B) so that Congress doesn't just continue to throw money at the White House and hope for the best.The actions of the Republicans aren't illegitimate. It's the Congress, not the President, that authorises funding. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the US Constitution states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." Furthermore the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit his budget request to Congress. None of these things have been done since 2009. Instead the White House calls for a continuing resolution rubber stamping whatever Obama decides to do and the Congress goes along with it. The Republican dominated House is well within its rights to insist that the law be followed. There's no evidence that the Tea party has been paid off by the health insurers and plenty of evidence that they're doing what they're doing because they honestly believe in what they're doing. This is further supported by the fact that most HMOs support the Affordable Care Act because it contains what is known as an "individual mandate" that forces everyone to buy private health insurance and fines them if they don't buy it. Why would the HMOs oppose a law that forces everyone to be their customers whether they like it or not? The Tea Party Republicans have given every indication that their opposition to the "individual mandate" is based on their opposition to government using the power of the state to compel purchases from private companies.Do you really think that the Climate Commission was closed down because of political lobbyists? The fact is that the people voted for and elected the coalition in the full knowledge that the Climate Commission would be one of the first things to go.

Hudson Godfrey:

09 Oct 2013 9:47:05am

No, further research I'm as fully informed of the issues here as anyone can hope to be who isn't a US citizen and my view is as stated. The Tea Party are a disgraceful rump of extremists who are ruining what little reputation the GOP had left by irresponsibly holding the nation to ransom for the sole purpose of destroying the affordable care act. If the entire budget were up for grabs in actuality then maybe something like defence cuts would be up for negotiation. They not because the Democrats already negotiated cuts once and it will still never be good enough for the Republicans until this program that they're ideologically opposed to is scrapped in direct violation of the interests and mandated will of the American people.

As with any such political disagreement the thing to do is often to follow the money and find out who benefits when politicians in receipt of political donations from corporations being treated as individuals act a certain way. The HMOs clearly do benefit from getting rid of the affordable care act because of the way the current lacking healthcare system works to preserve and promote an underlying fear of being refused care. The fact that they'll be co-opted into the new system is a function not of the GOP's ideological slant against compelled dealings with private companies, but came about because of the way they forced changes to the act in its original form. Had Obama had his way the system would have been more universal and workers' gripes in relation to where their employee healthcare packages fit into the system would have been properly accommodated rather than being blocked by Republicans forcing more rather fewer employees to buy their own healthcare.... But hey don't let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good lie.

As for the climate change commission, it was closed down because Abbott lied to the people about not really still thinking that climate change is "crap". I'm just saying I hope it now doesn't turn into a lobby group rather than the independent source of information and advice it was formerly set up to be.

reaver:

09 Oct 2013 11:26:20am

Your rants are fun, Hudson, but you can't replace fact with fervour. The House Republicans' refusal to pass yet another continuing resolution is not solely about the Affordable Care Act. It's as much about the debt ceiling as any other issue. They want everything in the budget, including defence spending (Which should be cut. The US accounts for 40% of global military spending and has just lost a war to illiterate peasants whose entire military spending is on string and mobile phones), to be up for negotiation as would be done if an actual budget was negotiated and passed. Whether it fits into your ideology or not, the bulk of HMOs do support the Affordable Care Act with its "individual mandate". They are, after all, the ones who're most responsible for it being there. Why would they be opposed to a law that removes the cheapest forms of insurance coverage and then forces everyone to buy insurance from them?

Mycal:

08 Oct 2013 6:41:53pm

The argument that private support for what were previously funded functions (ie. the Climate Council) is evidence that supports libertarian position is specious. It amounts to the tradegy of the commons with the added twist that one of the players is the government. It could also be evaluated using game theory where outcome from cooperation/non-cooperation is climate change, mitigated or extreme. Lots of possibility here.

However it is also interesting to note the lack of ethical considerations involved in the approach the government has taken, when damage is incurred from the effects of climate change will it be the public purse that pays for it or private citizens? I seem to remember less than whole hearted support by the Libs for the levy funding the remediation of the damage caused by the Queensland floods, in fact one Liberal idiot castigated the State and Local governments in Queensland for not taking out "private insurance" (that's about the most expensive way you can find for dealing with flood and fire damage). Of course some might argue that the Queensland floods were just "extreme weather" but then that's what climate change predicts isn't it.

Pam O:

08 Oct 2013 6:58:07pm

Let's get one thing straight. Julia Gillard formed the Climate Commission as a lobby group to justify her carbon tax. It is as simple as that.

The same group of people will now act as a AGW Lobby Group for their 'new employer(s)', who ever they might be. I mean who ever values Tim Flannery's 'scary stories' to the tune of 'cool' million dollars. Good luck!

john byatt:

Pam O:

08 Oct 2013 8:50:27pm

The biggest fallacy of the AGW protagonists is that THEY are on the side of science. John, you are wrong. You only choose to believe propaganda of few (not 97% OF ALL Scientists) government employed or IPCC bureaucrats, many of who are not even scientist. Please try thousands of scientists who try to expose the global warming scam however they are precluded access to the mass media by the powerful AGW lobby.

John, you support the AGW propaganda - not the science. I hope you understand the difference.

mick:

08 Oct 2013 9:39:23pm

quite clearly the climate commission or climate club can now be funded by those that support the pyschoscience from the left. just like a footy club those that like the team and cheer for the players can freely dip into their pockets and pay for the clubs trappings. They should probably form a political party and then those that like their ideas can vote for them. Thats democracy. Public i suspect a bit tired of this left wing climate/weather mantra.

ru4real:

09 Oct 2013 12:45:43am

Hypothetical: a minority of extremist Australian MPs votes against a supply bill unless DisabilityCare is dismantled. Government services shut down for a week, and public servants are out of work. Could this happen in Australia?

MrEd:

R.Ambrose Raven:

09 Oct 2013 9:27:24am

Charities/NGOs are not a miracle cure, notwithstanding the benefits to NGO CEO power, pay and status of seeking to claim so.

A few points:

[1] NGOs are willing and quite deliberately uncritical beneficiaries of the Rabid Right / Blair New Labour model - flogging-out government responsibilities using the ideological and self-serving claim that NGOs are closer to the community so will do it better. They don't, as is to be expected. But then, provision of equal or better than public services is never the real aim; it is to cut costs, shift and preferably remove responsibility (plausible deniability), while still allowing attention-seeking politicians the most contradictory, conflicting, ill-thought, exploitative and badly organised schemes that ever made it to a press release.

[2] NGOs choose to carefully avoid acknowledging that the international problems NGOs seek to solve (e.g. refugees, drought, poverty, or environmental over-exploitation) are if not caused by then certainly worsened and/or perpetuated by political forces such as imperialism, transnational capitalism's obsessive drive for profit, as well as the creation and exploitation of inequality by oppressive ruling classes, putting profits not merely before people but regardless of the cost to people. Treating the symptoms is not going to produce a cure.

[3] Job Search, for instance, is a motley collection of self-interested non-performing profit-seekers and NGOs; flogging-out the matching of skills, people and jobs has had no benefits, but the usual costs. Recall, too, planned and systematic fraud by NGOs (including the Catholic Church and Salvation Army) and profit-seeker providers.

[4] NGOs strengths include good intentions, sometimes grassroots connections, and maybe deliver programmes more cheaply than government agencies, especially in disasters, but can't handle big or lasting projects, and can have real accountability problems.

[5] It is damaging to the interests of NGOs and good housing policy for community housing NGOs to claim more than they can realistically do. Offloading housing issues onto NGOs has elsewhere done more harm than good. Performance of housing NGOs themselves will have to be improved and maintained, in both advocacy and service delivery. Yet accountability will be reduced, just as the enticing start-up funding will be succeeded by less and less - as is intended.

Only government can fund the needed quantity of non-private needs-focussed housing. Obviously any effort to do so will face administrastive and political sabotage, since the expansion of private markets in health, education, social welfare, and housing will benefit greatly from the marginalisation of the public sphere.

R.Ambrose Raven:

09 Oct 2013 9:28:17am

Events like the shutting-down by the Mad Hatter's Tea Party of America's government should highlight its value.

There is no automatic correlation between Services and Taxation. We can have much better services without necessarily needing more taxation, though the company tax rate should in equity be increased to the individual tax rate.

Consider: - Who provides? For thirty years profit-seekers have put enormous effort into deluding the public that profit-seekers are inherently better and cheaper at providing a wide range of important social services. Yet privatisation has a very hostile public - experience of the flog-offs of the last two decades has won hostility rather than support from those they were claimed to help the most - those who consume them.

- Who pays? Individuals, companies, and foreigners all pay Australian tax, but in different ratios. Profit-seekers are working hard to reduce corporate taxation, both directly and by offloading it onto less affluent individual taxpayers (such as by creation of then increases in a GST).

- What use? For rent-seeker subsidies, or for what are agreed to be basic government services, or for what would be well outside today's assumptions but would overall deliver a large social dividend (such as much much more public housing, or public taxi services).

- Who benefits? In 2008-09 Australian government Aboriginal expenditure reached $22 billion. Yet it is remarkably ineffective precisely because those large expenditures are there to conceal a bad aim - preserving dysfunctional dependence, meaning the entrenching of Aboriginal disadvantage to prevent any Aboriginal autonomy.

- What ratio? Is the proportion of tax take to be reduced in a recession? Is Keynes' wisdom (Rudd/Gillard) or Hayek's social hatred (Abbott/Hockey) to prevail?

But we will most certainly not have good services without at least moderate taxation.

OUB :

09 Oct 2013 11:19:39am

Paul the Climate Council have been just as happy to peddle misinformation as information. They are advocates, not dispassionate dispensers of information. They prefer to belittle and demean people with contrary views rather than listen to the dissenters and quietly point out the faults in their claims. As such they do not belong on the public payroll. I have no problem with someone else funding them, whether for altruistic reasons or because it suits the funders commercial agenda. They could not be less evenhanded if they tried, no matter who was sponsoring them.

I don't believe governments should be sponsoring prizes in the arts. This is nothing but an opportunity for politicians to get their photos in the paper. It is a role much better suited to wealthy patrons of the arts, preferably a number of them. Governments should have no role in promoting the arts, they add nothing. If for example opera is unable to attract sufficient funding from private backers then the scale of their productions should be scaled back. The idea of governments dictating what art is good for us is ridiculous.

Bill:

09 Oct 2013 11:37:51am

The Climate Commission has just hit its $1 million fundraising target, allowing it to continue as the Climate Council. Does this not go to prove that Abbott and his cronies are all sly, smirky, shifty and all mouth.If it does not suit their own self importance ego then shut it down.